GAME #19: LAC (11-7) @ CELTS (14-3)—MON 11/25 4:30PM: CHANNEL 5

[NYCelticsfan136]

The Celtics only won a title last year because of who they played. If they play a team that would run them off the 3, they'd lose. It's not a sustainable offense

Yeah sure.

[Roscoe Sheed]

Almost 50 3's is ridiculous. I know the league has been trending up in 3's forever but this style of play is boring. What makes it worse is that it is working for them.

Silver can keep forcing new stupid gimmicks every year, but this right here is reason #1 why the NBA's ratings are tanking and he'll never address it. The worst part is that the only way to compete with teams like the Celtics is to become them and start chucking up 50+ threes every game yourself. There's no room for diversity in play style anymore because any style other than this one has a low mathematical ceiling.

Denver won without shooting a ton of 3s, but I get your point. They really need to ponder moving the 3 point line back- I've been saying it for years- teams should not be taking more than 1/2 of their shots from 3

[MartinToVaught]

They really need to ponder moving the 3 point line back- I've been saying it for years- teams should not be taking more than 1/2 of their shots from 3

I don't think moving the line back will make much of a difference. Players are too good at shooting nowadays. Teams will still chuck up 50 threes. In an era where guys will pull up from the logo, i don't think distance really matters.

What they need to do is just make shots from beyond the arc worth two points instead of three. The only reason for the extra point was as a reward for making a higher degree-of-difficulty shot. It's not a harder shot for most players anymore, so there's no longer any need for the reward. This would also stop the sport from being broken by simple math.

[Roscoe Sheed]

They really need to ponder moving the 3 point line back- I've been saying it for years- teams should not be taking more than 1/2 of their shots from 3

I don't think moving the line back will make much of a difference. Players are too good at shooting nowadays. Teams will still chuck up 50 threes. In an era where guys will pull up from the logo, i don't think distance really matters.

What they need to do is just make shots from beyond the arc worth two points instead of three. The only reason for the extra point was as a reward for making a higher degree-of-difficulty shot. It's not a harder shot for most players anymore, so there's no longer any need for the reward. This would also stop the sport from being broken by simple math.

if they got rid of the corner 3 or expanded the court and moved the line back by 3 feet (including in the corners), the percentages would have to go down considerably- which may make mid-range shots more appealing.

On a side note though, the Boston front office should be commended for finding such capable shooters. They have so many guys that can chuck it up from the 3- it is hard to find enough guys that can shoot that well to justify playing the way they do. They are also decent athletes too- so they can't be exploited that much on defense, such as the way Kennard was targeted (although he isn't that poor of a defender).

[Clemenza]

Good lord what was that, 100 threes put up with like half of them going in? More power to them I guess